On 05/03/14 03:22 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote: > Hi, > > I do not consider myself as a Linux expert, but rather an advanced > user. I am running Arch for a few years now, with a clean setting > environment and no major breakage. > > I am a great fan of systemd functionallities, but I waste my time the > past two weeks setting up a working network on a systemd-nspawn > managed container with no success. My setup is rather basic : a static > IP for the main machine (it seems the HOST term is not relevant) and a > static IP for the container. > > I have been reading/posting a lot, but as today didn't get a clean > answer about netctl/systemd-networkd configuration files. netctl isn't part of systemd or related to systemd-networkd. As far as I know, Arch is the only distribution using netctl. > Systemd is now ruling the Linux world, as more and more services are > managed by it. This is not a bad thing, but in my opinion, there is a > clear lack of good documentation/manuals/wiki. As it seems we are > bound to learn systemd, I wish the systemd community could propose > more documented manuals. This is not the case today. You're welcome to contribute to the documentation. I think the documentation is a significant improvement over what existed for the previous stack of technologies systemd is replacing. > We shall now engage a serious rethinking of what part of systemd shall > be in core, and what part stay in devel. A good example would be > systemd-networkd. Honestly, this service needs supra intelligence or > NASA tech engineer knowledge. The systemd-networkd daemon is written by an Arch developer. It only recently landed upstream and is still going through rapid initial development. It's not intended to be a replacement for end user facing software like NetworkManager and ConnMan, but rather a simple/powerful tool for system administrators. The initial documentation certainly does exist, despite it being such a new addition: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-networkd.html > Lennart and his team are certainly very good dev and clever guys, but > they clearly don't deliver good documentation. I remember that one of > my main pain in Linux was to set up a working pulse audio service ! This isn't clear to me. For example, the documentation on unit files is quite extensive and spans many man pages: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.unit.html > As a long time Linux user, I do not see any interest in setting up > packages with no serious documentations. You're certainly free to continue handling networking with netctl, ConnMan or NetworkManager. > I do not want my post to start a new flame as the one two years ago, > but I am expecting some kind of community reaction against > beta/broken/incomprehensible services. > > I wish the Arch community could be able to separate the > working/documented part of systemd from the dark/beta part only > dedicated to a few elite. Which part of systemd doesn't work? Do you even have an example of a unit type or user-facing utility that's not documented?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
